View printer friendly version |

I’m sure many of us, (including myself) watched the episode of ‘Question Time,’ (which was aired on 22.10.09), with barely concealed glee.  The witty retorts from Bonnie Greer, (renowned author), against the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, was a pleasure to watch. Observing the range of opinions, and the openness with which they were expressed, should make us appreciate that freedom of expression is a truly amazing thing.  However at the back of my mind, I can feel doubt surreptitiously creeping in at the edges.  Can we have too much of a good thing? It is not what was said during the Question Time episode that captured my interest, (well, not entirely), but the reaction of the public to it, and the intensity of that reaction.  When, the issue of race gets mentioned, we are forced to confront a cornucopia of opinion, from extreme polarised and partisan positions, to complete disinterest.  This was evident throughout the public uproar surrounding the inclusion of Mr Griffin on the popular BBC show.

Calls for the BNP leader to be banned from the discussion programme were made by prominent individuals such as the home secretary, Alan Johnson.  In addition, special interest organisations, such as Unite against Fascism, vehemently protested the presence of Nick Griffin, on the programme. They organised an anti-BNP demonstration, which resulted in approximately 16 coaches of people turning up.  Evidently, the reaction to potentially racist speech is clearly intense and multifaceted. However, the remarks of Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT, (the largest British teachers union) are particularly intriguing.  He stated that the BNP should not be given a ‘platform to promote racial hatred, intolerance and violence.’ It is within this statement that we are confronted with the unfortunate dilemma that exists within modern liberal Western democracies. How do we accommodate or address racist political beliefs?  Is the answer to completely ostracise these types of groups, or should we embrace them as part of the fabric of our society?  Ultimately, how do we draw the appropriate balance between the hated and the haters? 

Recourse to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, tells us that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of expression.’ In the case of Jersild v. Denmark, the Commission also accepted that recognition of Article 10, may also include the dissemination of racist ideas.  The overriding idea from Europe, is that of acceptance, and it is these types of ideals that should become concrete within British society.  The beliefs of organisations such as the BNP should not be sidelined, simply because they are substantially different to the values upon this country has come to cherish, such as acceptance, tolerance and equality. Racist speech may make us feel uncomfortable, uneasy, and possibly even create feelings of self-loathing amongst the affected groups.  However, the answer does not lie in burying our heads in the sands.  Hiding away from certain beliefs does not mean they go away.  It only means we do not hear them. A policy of ‘I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing,’ merely serves the interests of those who want to spread and breed, fear and distrust.  This is because it allows their views to go unchallenged.  Democracy is (in part) based on debate.  For those of us who wish to become part of the public forum, direct forms of democracy encourage us to actively participate in open discourse.  The possibility of hurt feelings (or perhaps more), should not deter people from action.

Furthermore, I think people are fearful about the possible impact on wider society. There is a possibility that not penalising racist speech will further marginalise and dehumanise certain minority groups. There is also the lingering question of whether Britain has truly moved on from a time where signs of “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish,” were a normal feature of certain pubs and hotels.  Does allowing the BNP to openly state their views mean that Britain has not changed for the better? Barack Obama told the world that “change has come to America,” but has any ‘real’ change come to Britain?  The answer is of course it has!  The signs came down a long time ago, and ethnic minorities have become an increasingly prominent part of the British landscape.  There have even been signs of the emergence of our own ‘Barack Obama’ type figures in the form of Lewis Iwu, (the first black president of the Oxford Union), and the Honourable Mrs Justice Dobbs DBE.  She became the first non-white High Court judge in October 2004. However, while these people represent a new age of racial acceptance and equality, their existence does not take away from the fact that we are still left with the problem of how to deal with organisations like the BNP. 

It is not enough to speak of encouraging people to challenge racist views.  This fails to take into account, the practical realities of today’s society and the disadvantages suffered by some marginalised communities.  They may lack the opportunity to make their voices heard.  Fear of reprisal, of ‘rocking the boat,’ and even appearing overly argumentative are just a few examples of how people can be implicitly pushed into submission.  In addition, the possibility of tokenism or only being a symbol of racial tolerance, (as an ‘acceptable face of brown’), offers the possibility of further humiliation by ignoring meritocratic principles.  These types of ‘quick fix’ responses to racial hate speech are actually pandering to groups such as the BNP, because it relegates minority groups to subordinate positions.  Perhaps, the actual ‘fear’ surrounding racial hate speech lies in the ambiguous nature of how to effectively help people get their voices heard, without the worry that negative responses will follow.  What society needs to be is unafraid.  Unafraid of engaging with extremist groups and, unafraid of having to face challenges that force us to recognise that not everyone is willingly embracing diversity with open arms.